coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Prasov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.
5.  The applicant is a co-founder and former managing director of a private limited liability company, P. At a meeting of 18 December 1999, the company’s shareholders struck him off the list of the company’s shareholders and re-distributed his shares that, according to applicant, were worth UAH 162,962 (EUR 26,074)[1] on 14 August 2003.
6.  On 30 December 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninsky Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the Leninsky Court”) seeking to set aside the decision of 18 December 1999.
7.  On 17 November 2000 the court, relying on the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1963 that, among other things, governed examination of complaints against officials, allowed his complaint in part.
8.  On 26 December 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court, following the respondent’s appeal, quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the Leninsky Court which, in a judgment of 25 May 2001, found for the applicant.
9.  On 19 September 2001 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment and ordered a fresh consideration by the first instance court. The applicant filed an appeal in cassation which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 November 2001.
10.  In May 2002 the Court of Appeal transferred the case to another District Court and in July 2004 it sent it back to the Leninsky Court.
11.  On 3 March 2005 the Leninsky Court found in part for him.
12.  On 30 May 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and left the applicant’s complaint without consideration stating that the case fell to be dealt with in civil contentious proceedings. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.
13.  In July 2005 the applicant instituted civil contentious proceedings before the Leninsky Court with the same object as the first set of proceedings.
14.  On 29 March 2006 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.
15.  On 23 May 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. The court in particular found that the claim was submitted out of the statutory time limit of three years. The applicant appealed in cassation.
16.  On 23 October 2007 the Supreme Court, according to the Judicial System Act (as amended on 22 February 2007), transferred the appeal to the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal.
17.  On 28 November 2007 the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal, having found that the appeal was outside its jurisdiction, transferred it to the Higher Commercial Court which, on 26 March 2008, dismissed the appeal. The applicant again appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court.
18.  By the final ruling of 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal in cassation.
5.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1953 respectively and live in Podgorica.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 19 May 1995 the Public Construction Fund based in Podgorica (“the PCFP”) requested the expropriation of a plot of land belonging to the applicants in order to build a road.
8.  On 14 September 1995 the applicants requested that their house and the remainder of their land also be expropriated.
9.  By the end of 1995 the planned road was built, passing through the plot in question.
10.  On 11 October 1996 the Real Estate Office in Podgorica (“the REOP”) expropriated only the plot specified by the PCFP, without considering the applicants’ request.
11.  On 29 October 1996 the applicants lodged an appeal, but by 11 December 1996 this appeal had been rejected.
12.  On 5 February 1998 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) quashed the above decisions.
13.  By 3 March 2004, following eight remittals, the requests were still pending before the REOP.
14.  Between 3 March 2004 and 28 March 2005 three hearings were adjourned, as either the municipality’s representative or the court’s expert witnesses had failed to appear.
15.  On 18 February 2005 the applicants sought an “inspection” (inspekcijski nadzor) of the proceedings at issue. By 16 March 2005 the Ministry of Justice had “established irregularities” in the proceedings and ordered that they be rectified (otklanjanje utvrđenih nepravilnosti).
16.  On 28 March 2005 the REOP accepted both expropriation requests and on 1 September 2005 this decision was confirmed on appeal.
17.  On 6 June 2006 the Administrative Court (Upravni sud) quashed the latter decision.
18.  On 3 October 2006 the Ministry of Finance (“the MOF”) quashed the REOP’s decision of 28 March 2005.
19.  Since the REOP had failed to render a decision thereafter, on 11 June 2007 and 14 August 2007 respectively the applicants lodged complaints with the MOF.
20.  On 30 August 2007 the applicants also initiated a dispute (upravni spor) before the Administrative Court.
21.  On 7 September 2007 the MOF accepted the applicants’ appeal and ordered the REOP to decide on the matter within thirty days.
22.  On 24 October 2007 the Administrative Court stayed the administrative dispute.
23.  On 3 November 2007 the REOP accepted both expropriation requests, but on 28 May 2008 the MOF quashed this decision on appeal.
24.  On 16 December 2008 the applicants re-instituted their dispute before the Administrative Court.
25.  As of 19 May 2010 the proceedings were still pending.
6.  The applicants were born in 1932, 1934 and 1942, respectively, and live in Albania.
7.  In 1950 a plot of land measuring 1,600 sq. m., which belonged to the applicants' father, was confiscated without compensation by the State, which subsequently constructed a building on the plot of land.
8.  On 1 July 1991 the Italian Embassy in Albania purchased two buildings in Tirana, one of which was situated on the applicants' inherited plot of land. The transaction was concluded through an inter-State agreement validated by means of note verbale exchanges between the two governments. The relevant property titles were not entered in the Tirana Property Register.
9.  The Albanian Government subsequently used the income from the transaction to purchase the premises of the Albanian Embassy in Rome (see also Vrioni and Others v. Albania and Italy, nos. 35720/04 and 42832/06, §§ 7-16, 29 September 2009 for a similar description of facts).
10.  Under the Property Restitution and Compensation Act, the applicants lodged an application with the Tirana Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – “the Commission”) claiming title to their father's property.
11.  On 28 July 1999 the Commission recognised the applicants' father's property title over 1,600 sq. m. and acknowledged the fact that the plot of land was occupied by the Italian Embassy in Albania. Since buildings had been constructed on the land, the Commission ruled that their owner, the Italian Government, had to pay rent for the land or repurchase the land by agreement.
12.  The applicants were also issued with a certificate of registration of property by the Registry Office: registration no. 137, dated 9 August 1999.
13.  The applicants claimed that they sent letters to the Italian Embassy to enter into a lease or to sell the plot of land according to the Commission's decision. However, the Italian Embassy explained that the property had been transferred to them through the exchange of notes verbales in 1991.
14.  The applicants filed an action on 16 January 2003 to recover the property and to obtain damages from the Italian authorities.
15.  On 22 June 2004 the Tirana District Court quashed the Commission's decision as regards the physical return of the property to the applicants, since that plot of land had been lawfully occupied by the Italian Embassy since 1991. Instead, it ruled that the applicants should be compensated for 1,600 sq. m in one of the ways provided for by law. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, by way of reasoned decisions, upheld the District Court's decision on 25 March 2005 and 6 June 2006, respectively. On 24 November 2006 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court.
16.  On 8 December 2006 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, declared the application inadmissible.
3.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.
4.  The applicant, a navy captain at the material time, brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence (“the Ministry”) for the annulment of his appointment to a different post, which he deemed to be unlawful.
5.  On 1 May 2007 a hearing was held on the case. Following the hearing, the Supreme Military Administrative Court adopted an interim decision, where it put further questions to the Ministry. The applicant was neither provided with the interim decision, nor was he informed of the Ministry's replies.
6.  On 29 May 2007 the Supreme Military Administrative Court delivered its judgment and refused the applicant's request regarding the annulment of his appointment.
7.  The applicant subsequently requested rectification of this judgment, along with the disqualification of the judges that delivered it, alleging their lack of independence and impartiality (hakimin reddi).
8.  On 13 July 2007 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request for the disqualification of the judges, as it found his allegations to be groundless.
9.  On 9 October 2007 it rejected the applicant's rectification request.
4.  The applicants were born in 1954 and live in Moscow.
5.  On 5 October 2001 the applicants sued the Nefron association seeking conclusion of employment contracts.
6.  The Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) scheduled the first hearing for 21 February 2002. Between 21 February 2002 and 17 June 2003 one hearing was held as planned. Six scheduled hearings did not take place due to the respondent’s default in appearance or requests for adjournment, three hearings had to be postponed following the applicants’ failure to appear or requests for adjournment, and three hearings could not proceed as both parties either failed to submit evidence or to show in court altogether.
7.  On 17 June 2003 the District Court considered that the applicants no longer intended to pursue their civil action and decided to strike the case out of its list.
8.  On 7 August 2003 the applicants asked the court to reinstate the case to its list claiming that they had not been able to appear at the hearings because the first applicant had been undergoing hospital treatment.
9.  On 9 September 2003 the District Court quashed its earlier decision and reinstated the case to its list. The next hearing was scheduled for 3 November 2003. Between 3 November 2003 and 12 July 2004 five hearings were held as planned, whereas five other hearings were postponed due to the fault of the respondent, two for the applicants’ failure to appear, and two others for both parties’ default.
10.  On 12 July 2004 the District Court again considered that the applicants no longer intended to pursue their civil action and decided to strike the case out of its list.
11.  On 22 December 2004 the applicants asked the court to reinstate the case to its list. On 19 January 2005 the District Court quashed its decision of 12 July 2004 after finding that the applicants had not been duly notified of certain unspecified hearings and resumed the proceedings. The next hearing was scheduled for 31 January 2005.
12.  The hearing of 31 January 2005 was adjourned as the respondent did not appear.
13.  On 16 February and 10 March 2005 the hearings were held as planned.
14.  On 11 March 2005 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ claims in full.
15.  On 8 June 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
16.  On an unspecified date the first applicant sued the Military Commission of Moscow for recalculation of his pension.
17.  On 14 July 2006 the Justice of the Peace of the 384th Court Circuit of the Meshchanskiy District of Moscow dismissed his claims.
18.  On 25 October 2006 the Meshchankiy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment on appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Poltava.
6.  In November 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Poltava Kyivsky District Court against his former employer – the Poltava Regional Fire Safety Department – claiming payment arrears of a monthly subsistence allowance for the years 1999 and 2000.
7.  On 27 September 2002 the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him 767.04 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH).
8.  On 11 October 2002 the same court rectified its judgment of 27 September 2002 and increased the amount awarded to UAH 797.04.
9.  On 15 April 2003 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decisions of 27 September and 11 October 2002 and rejected the applicant's claims. The appellate court based its findings on the fact that the Budget Act 2000 had not foreseen expenditure for the payments under the applicable Presidential Decree, and therefore held that the applicant had no entitlement to such payments during the impugned period under the Budgetary System Act.
10.  On 15 September 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of 15 April 2003.
6.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Fier, Albania.
7.  On 20 May 1947 the authorities confiscated the applicant's father's one-storey villa and the appurtenant plot of land measuring 360 sq. m which was situated in the city of Fier.
8.  On 6 June 1953 the authorities transferred the confiscated villa and the plot of land to S.
9.  Pursuant to the 1993 Property Act, on an unspecified date the applicant and his nine siblings lodged an application with the Fier Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (“the Commission”) seeking the restitution of their father's property. On 27 October 1993 the Commission dismissed their request.
10.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Lushnjë District Court (“the District Court”) claiming that the Commission's decision was unlawful.
11.  On 22 February 2000 the District Court recognised the applicant's and his siblings' inherited property rights over the villa and the plot of land. However, the District Court found that, in so far as the plot of land was occupied and in so far as the one-storey villa had been lawfully transferred to S, they were not recoverable by the applicant and his siblings. It awarded them compensation in the amount of 204,902 Albanian leks (“ALL”).
12.  The applicant and his siblings appealed arguing that the District Court had wrongly assessed the evidence.
13.  On 30 June 2000 the Vlora Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) awarded the applicant and his siblings compensation in-kind for the value of the plot of land as opposed to monetary compensation. The applicant and his siblings appealed.
14.  On 18 June 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that it did not contain any of the grounds of appeal envisaged by Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant and his siblings lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court.
15.  On 10 June 2002 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, declared the appeal inadmissible.
16.  To date, the Court of Appeal decision has not been enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 15 September 1989 the applicant brought an action against a private individual before the Pest Central District Court, seeking to recover the possession of some specific movable property.
6.  After several hearings, a judgment was delivered on 19 November 1992, which was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 14 September 1993.
7.  In the resumed proceedings several forensic expert opinions were obtained. Two hearings had to be rescheduled as the applicant and his representative failed to appear, despite having been duly summoned. On 3 June 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 11 October 2004 the Budapest Regional Court remitted the case.
8.  The District Court delivered a partial judgment on 12 April 2006, which was decided on appeal by the Regional Court on 22 March 2007.
9.  In respect of the respondent's counterclaim, the first-instance court delivered a judgment on 7 July 2006 which was upheld by the Regional Court on 22 March 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Volgograd. He is a retiree.
6.  On 13 May 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Volgograd (“the District Court”) allowed the applicant's claim against his former employer and regional health care authority. It ruled that the applicant's illnesses should be considered occupational diseases. That finding entitled the applicant to receive additional social security payments.
7.  The judgment of 13 May 2003 was not appealed against and became final and enforceable ten days after its delivery.
8.  The health care authority lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 13 May 2003 with the Volgograd Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).
9.  On 3 September 2004 the Presidium of the Regional Court (“the Presidium”) examined the case by way of supervisory review and set aside the judgment of 13 May 2003.
10.  The Presidium noted that the District Court had erred in finding for the applicant as recognition of a certain illness as occupational disease was within “the prerogative” of the competent health care authorities. The case was remitted back to the District Court.
11.  Following determination de novo, the applicant's claim was dismissed in the final instance by the Regional Court on 17 March 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Yelizovo, the Kamchatka Region. He is a military serviceman.
6.  On 22 March and 20 May 2004 the Pacific Ocean Fleet Military Court (“the Fleet Court”), sitting in Vladivostok, in the final instance dismissed the applicant's claims against his commanding officers.
7.  On 22 July 2004 the Fleet Court in the final instance allowed the applicant's other claim. It made the following order:
“The commanding officer of military unit no. 27120 shall provide [the applicant] with data about the constitutive elements of his monetary allowance paid to him from 1 January 2003 until 13 March 2004, as well as about reasons and grounds for him being deprived of bonus in 2003”.
8.  The Fleet Court's judgment of 22 July 2004 was final and immediately enforceable.
9.  On 4 April 2005 the bailiffs of the Kamchatka Regional Department of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service (“the Regional Department”) commenced the enforcement proceedings. They requested the commanding officer to enforce the judgment of 22 July 2004 in the applicant's favour voluntarily within a five-days period.
10.  Meanwhile, on 1 April 2005 the 35th Garrison Military Court (“the Garrison Court”), sitting in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, allowed another claim lodged by the applicant. It ordered the commanding officer of the military unit no. 51401 to provide the applicant with an annual leave starting from 29 May 2005. The judgment of 1 April 2005 was not appealed against and became final and enforceable on 15 April 2005.
11.  On 10 June 2005 the bailiffs of the Regional Department commenced the enforcement proceedings. They requested the commanding officer to enforce the judgment of 1 April 2005 in the applicant's favour voluntarily within a five-days period. The judgment was enforced before October 2005.
12.  On 4 June 2009 the commanding officer of the military unit no. 27120 wrote to the applicant providing him with the relevant information, as he had been ordered to do by the Fleet Court's judgment of 22 July 2004. The letter of 4 June 2009 indicated that it was sent in compliance with the judgment of 22 July 2004. It was received by the applicant on 8 June 2009.
7.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kurgan.
8.  In 2002 the criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant. On 19 May 2003 he was acquitted by the Kurgan Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). That acquittal was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia and became final.
9.  The applicant lodged a claim for compensation. On 22 October 2003 the Kurgan Town Court partly allowed that claim and awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB), this sum was equal to approximately 140 euros (EUR) at the material time. The award was payable from the federal budget.
10.  The judgment of 22 October 2003 was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 11 December 2003 and thus became final. Writ of execution was issued.
11.  On 17 February 2004 the court bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the applicant who was advised to address himself directly to the Ministry of Finance in Moscow. He apparently did so.
12.  On 17 February 2005 the Director of Legal Department at the Ministry of Finance wrote to the applicant assuring him that the final judgment of the Town Court of 22 October 2003 in his favour had been in the course of being enforced.
13.  That judgment remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.
5.  On an unspecified date the Zavodsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the District Court”) gave an unspecified decision on the claim of the applicant’s former husband, Z., lodged against the applicant for division of their property. By a final ruling of 5 February 1985, the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court (“the Regional Court”, since June 2001, the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal), ordered Z. to compensate the applicant for her share of their property.
6.  In 1985 the Prosecutor’s Office of Zaporizhzhya and the Zavodsky District Police Department invited the applicant to discuss the residence registration of her daughter, O.
7.  In 1988-1989 the applicant lodged claims with the Budenovsky District Court of Donetsk and Donetsk Regional Court seeking division of her common property with Z. There is no indication whether and, if so, how these claims were handled by the courts.
8.  In 1991-2005 the applicant unsuccessfully tried to have her brothers, K.Vi. and K.Vo., prosecuted for hooliganism and theft. She was not found to be a civil party to these proceedings.
9.  On 9 November 1992 K.Vi. and K.Vo. lodged a claim against the applicant challenging the validity of their mother’s will over a house and belongings.
10.  On 25 September 1998 the District Court partly allowed the claim.
11.  Following a “protest” of the Zaporizhzhya Regional Prosecutor of 25 September 1998, the Regional Court quashed this judgment on 25 December 1998 and remitted the case to the Distrcit Court which, on19 February 2004 partly allowed the applicant’s claim.
12.  On 26 May 2004 the Regional Court upheld this judgment. On 22 June the applicant appealed in cassation. On 12 July 2006 she requested the Supreme Court to speed up examination of her case. By a final ruling of 4 October 2006, notified to the applicant on 19 October, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decisions.
13.  According to the Government, between 11 September 1997 and 4 October 2006, the applicant filed three procedural requests and two appeals which all met procedural requirements. Moreover, of the twenty nine hearings scheduled, eleven were adjourned at the claimants’ request, five were adjourned at the applicant’s request, four were adjourned due to the claimants’ or witness’s failure to attend, one was adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to attend, one was adjourned at the parties’ request, and three were adjourned for reasons beyond the parties’ control. Overall, due to the applicant’s requests or her failure to attend, the proceedings were delayed for about eleven moths.